FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- In a split ruling in an ongoing NRA-supported case challenging the restrictive gun laws established by the Washington D.C. government in defiance of the Supreme Courts 2008 Heller decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a number of highly restrictive gun laws.

Unfortunately, the court ruled that the Districts general handgun registration requirement is constitutional. However, the court reached that conclusion by misreading the Supreme Courts Heller decision as presuming that any type of longstanding restriction is constitutional, so it only upheld the more traditional aspects of the registration system, such as the requirements that the registrant provide his or her name and address, a description of the firearm and certain other basic information.

By contrast, the court found that other D.C. requirements, such as fingerprints, a vision requirement, ballistics tests and mandatory training, were novel and therefore need to be reviewed again by a lower court under a tighter standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the court found that long gun registration is novel in the U.S. and returned that issue to the lower court as well.

D.C. laws banning assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition were also wrongly found to be constitutional. The Supreme Court said in Heller that arms are protected under the Constitution if they are in common use, and the D.C. Circuit found it clear enough in the record that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are indeed in common use, based on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives production statistics showing that 1.6 million AR-15s alone have been manufactured since 1986, and that the banned magazines are even more prevalent.

But the court also found  based largely on the testimony of a Brady Campaign lawyer to the District of Columbia Council  that the District ha[d] carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime.

Fortunately, in a long and well reasoned dissenting opinion that may provide a road map for other courts, Judge Brett Kavanaugh rejected the majoritys reasoning. Rather than the intermediate scrutiny employed by the majority or any other balancing test, Judge Kavanaugh would have applied a standard based on text, history, and tradition. Under that standard, he argued that it would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semi-automatic rifles, which have not traditionally been banned and are in common use today.

Judge Kavanaugh also would have rejected the entire registration system, arguing that D.C.s type of total gun registration system is not traditional and remains highly unusual today.

The NRA strongly disagrees with the outcome, and is reviewing the decision and considering all options.

When it comes to self-defense, semi-automatic firearms of all types are an increasingly popular choice for most Americans, and the court itself admitted that semi-automatics are in common use, with millions of these guns sold in recent years, said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. Law abiding residents of the District should have the same access to these tools as residents of nearly all of the 50 states.

Liberals will do as they please. Even Supreme Court decisions can be undone by lower courts if the judge desires, in the liberal system of things. In California, ballot measures are overturned by the courts after they are passed by the electorate. Liberals only have regard for the law when it coincides with their own notions of correctness.

If we could just elect conservative presidents and Congress persons every election for a generation, we could have conservative courts and get rid of this nonsense. Pray for our country.

“However, the court reached that conclusion by misreading the Supreme Courts Heller decision.”

Hardly a surprise. The “Courts” have done the same thing with US v. Miller (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)) for the last 70 years. Just about every lower court, holding against the plain meaning of the 2nd, cites Miller as the justification for doing so. Or, worse, cites subsequent holdings that “misread” Miller.

Romneys no slam dunk for a Constitutional justice. Look what Bush almost did with, who was it, Myers?

Agreed. But Bush backed off on that one. Romney might as well (one time when a flip-flop would be welcome). We may get a squish like Justice Kennedy from Romney, but we probably wouldn't get a commie like Kagan.

12
posted on 10/22/2011 10:33:17 AM PDT
by Hugin
("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)

>>>If Teddy Roosevelt could see us now, he would regret that his activism and philosophy ended up with this incompetent nanny state.
>>Goes to show why we need to make sure Obama has appointed his last SCOTUS justice. Even if the nominee ends up being Romney (God help us).
>Romneys no slam dunk for a Constitutional justice. Look what Bush almost did with, who was it, Myers?

Romney? Why? IMO, that would be worse than John McCain.
Obama, for all his faults, has one thing in his favor: his administration has awoken many people (young & democrat) to the corruption of our government.*
Changing that little letter from D to R is exactly the wrong remedy; the Republicans *as a group* are actually WORSE than the Democrats, consider:
1 — Abortion, it’s been on the official Republican party-plank since the mid-80s... the BIGGEST stride against it happened with that big stir caused by the Planned Parenthood vids.
— GW, for all his many faults, is credited with making the biggest strides in that area with the “Mexico City” policy; but that IS NOT THE PARTY.
2 — Constitutionalism #1, the TSA was ramped up on GW’s watch; and their SOP is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.
3 — Constitutionalism #2, how many extra-constitutional agencies have been disbanded, EVER? (And that’s not even considering the existence of contra-constitutional ones like ATF.)
4 — “Fiscal responsibility,” it is shameful that Rand Paul’s proposal is the biggest, most famous, proposal to cut spending.

* While what he is doing is unarguably terrible, consider that the breadth/potency of the corruption that has allowed (and continues to allow) things like Fast & Furious cannot exist without support, and involvement, from BOTH parties. This means that the Republican party is not better than the Democrat, but better at hiding their filth and blaming others.

We don’t NEED a change-of-president, we need a change of what-we-will-suffer (allow).

17
posted on 10/24/2011 6:26:43 PM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.